The Navigation Acts made it so any colonies shipping any goods anywhere without stopping first in an English port to have their cargoes unloaded and loaded. This resulted in providing work for English dockworkers, stevedovers and longshoreman and also was an opportunity to regulate and tax what was being shipped.
In the cartoon above, the men represent the Nativists group that called for limiting immigration.
The political strategy of promoting or defending the interests of native or indigenous residents above those of immigrants, especially the backing of immigration-restrictive laws, is known as nativism.
People in nativist groups sought to stop immigration. Their campaign was directed at those groups that might alter the course of established American culture.
The most frequently cited justification for immigration limits is the need to shield American workers from poverty. The mechanism is straightforward: Without these rules, the labor supply would significantly expand, resulting in a sharp decline in American wages to Third World levels.
Because the majority of Americans supported nativism, limitations on immigration were also popular.
To learn more about immigration refer to:
brainly.com/question/13688875
#SPJ9
Answer:
See explanation.
Explanation:
The Hebrews are in the region of modern day Israel and Palestine.
The Phoenicians were in the region of modern day southern Syria, northern Israel, and Lebanon.
The Sumerians occupied the region of southern Iraq in the modern day.
The Egyptians still occupy modern Egypt today.
Hope this helps! :) If you have a question about my answer, just comment!
The correct answer is Keynes.
Keynes supported free markets but as long as these were regulated by state intervention in order to soften the peaks and troughs in the business cycle. Therefore, in his opinion, the three economic questions (what to produce, how and for whom) should be answered by the economic agents in the markets, but always under the supervision of the state.
Smith was an advocate of free markets and of supressing state interventionism. On the other hand, Marx was in favour of massive intervention of the state because he considered markets to produce un unfair distribution of wealth in the states, where the richer ones exploited the poor.
Answer:
D. Convince wealthy citizens to improve the living conditions of the poor.
I hope this helps you!
